Ma'ariv reported yesterday that Israeli Prime Minister Olmert has turned over to the U.S. a document setting out Israel's security demands in a final agreement, and that the U.S. is considering "bridging" proposals to split the differences between Israeli and Palestinian offers down the middle, and defy the Israel lobby by doing so. But look how far apart the sides are: Ma'ariv says the Israelis are offering 93 percent of "Judea and Samaria," and that the 7 percent Israel plans to hold on to includes all the land west of the fence, including Palestinian farmland I blogged about yesterday. "The differences between the two sides are still significant," Ma'ariv says. "Since Israel does not count the area of greater Jerusalem" in that 93 percent figure. And Jerusalem has been put off for last, if a deal can be reached on territory and refugees.
But how? Israel's security demands sound like occupation by another name. Says the paper (I've got no link, this is fan mail from some flounder):
1. The Palestinian state will be fully demilitarized…
2. The Palestinian state will be forbidden from entering military alliances with other countries.
3. Israeli warning stations will be positioned on hilltops [in the West Bank ].
4. The IDF will maintain a presence along the Jordan River…
6. Israel will retain its control over air space.
7. Israel will have access to roads that run deep into Judea and Samaria .
As for the right of return under UN 194, Ma'ariv says that Israel would offer to absorb an as yet undetermined number of refugees in “humanitarian cases only.” The numbers are likely to be a
few thousand every year for approximately ten years.
What is the American interest? Ma'ariv adds the following about the lobby:
Oh, now it's lobbies. When will the American people/journalists wake up to our interest here?
Related posts:
{ 16 comments }
What does that post have to do with a one-state solution?
There are stresses associated with every possible solution proposed.
With the one-state solution on the table, most likely Phil would start running headlines stating "Why we're heading towards a two-state solutions".
Its time to champion the rule of law, with the American bill of rights (except the 4th, which should be repealed) and 14th amendment as models.
"Equal due process under the law".
And, we have to live up to it.
*********************************************
flounder??? Why not, says the herring.
*********************************************
"With the one-state solution on the table, most likely Phil would start running headlines stating "Why we're heading towards a two-state solutions"."
very, very unlikely. Maybe your Phil, but not the Phil we read.
Yeah, let's repeal our Fourth Amendment and give the Palestinians a state that's not a state. Then we can all live in Georgia or Israel.
Years ago I heard a great definition for something that is intangible in terms of physical form, but deadly in terms of experience: Psychic Murder.
Psychic Murder is when you push someone away and pull him (or her) to you at the same time, always with great emotion over something emotional to both parties. It debilitates the spirit. It poisons any relationship. It destroys you physically over time because you can't identify the culprit activity accurately.
All these peace proposals I've heard from Israel since the middle 90s are psychic murder. It's always Israel who is setting the terms. It gets tiring to listen to this great ME democracy, this paragon of freedom and fairness, this great hard-done-by for 60 years full of IQs greater than any other living group on the planet, these Chosen Ones, fail to achieve and perform the basic diplomacy and negotiation skills of even a nascent nation state.
Phil,
If you could alter the template of your TypePad (?) so the
Posted by: MRW. | August 18, 2008 at 01:34 PM
line was bold, it would help tremendously with readability.
This has everything to do with the one state solution. It goes like this. If the two state solution fails then we are left, by default, with the one state solution. No Palestinian leader can accept the Wall as its Western border or the inclusion of East Jeurusalem into Israel. They simply cannot. All actions by the Israelis since the beginning of the Oslo process, has been to use these negotiations to achieve their goals. There has been no exception to this. Furthermore, through the aid of the Lobby, US policy backs Israel's actions in fact, if not in word.
Israel has been relentlessly pursuing this end for the last 16 years. What Phil is illustrating here is that they are doing so this month as well.
Therefore, Israel will be responsible for the West Bank Arab population. They have to decide how to deal with them. Putting them in cages is the current policy, but most rational observers believe that after a few decades of that treatment, world opinion will probably force Israel to free its prisoners. About 40% of the Israeli public (and more importantly, likely a majority of the officers in intelligence and the IDF, support the transfer option. Like Benny Morris believes, they should do now what they failed to do in 1948. This option would not have support outside of Israel, probably even the US would object.
See, there is really no other option. It is one state or two states. If the Palestinians had any political sense they would give up on the two state solution for the simple reason they have lost that one. Sharon's facts on the ground are the reality. The Palestinians should adopt a political platform that the ANC found effective in S Africa.
OK MRW, I'll bite. Obviously this is all Israel's fault. Exclusively. I'll go with that. Ergo Israel can wind this up by the weekend. Say you were PM of Israel. All right genius. Tell me the plan. Lets hear it.
It took 15 years for the Palestinians to argue for the importance of the two-state solution, leading up to Oslo and the subsequent non-binding Geneva agreements.
Its taken another 15 years for the Israeli leadership to acknowledge that it is the best of imperfect solutions.
The options on the table include:
1. One state solution comprised of strong Jewish majority, comprising a Zionist state, after forcefully removing most Palestinians entirely from the land.
2. One sharia state comprised of strong Islamic majority, after forcefully removing most Jews entirely from the land.
3. One primarily civil state comprised of a majority formed from coalition of civilist parties. (Not from Likud, not from Hamas, not from Israeli religious parties, not from Palestinian militant parties)
4. Two states
3 is possible, but a long way away, and not formed by condemnation but by reaching out to the other.
A good start to being able to deliver anything at all, rather than sweet nothing, Israel could practice enforcing the rulings of its own Supreme Court, lest, at least on the topic of anything to do with Occupied Palestinian Territories, it may become as quint and obsolete as International Court of Justice or Geneva Conventions.
I ditto what MRW said in this post:
Posted by: MRW. | August 18, 2008 at 01:34 PM
Let me add the One State solution won't work.
The One State solution 'is' the Greater Israel.
Just plain won't work for the Palestines. They will be the underclass, stuffed into ghettos in Greater Israel.
Then most likely when they have the numbers they will revolt and they or the jewish Israelis will be wiped out and that will be that.
Once again what strikes me most in all the jewish/zionist mombo jumbo about Israel's reasons for existance, right to exist and jewish peoplehood right to self determination, blah,blah,blah justifications is the assumptions that this is their right alone and anything they can steal belongs to them.
Message to Israel…you know your mantra question/slogan about if Jews aren't for themselves who will be?
Answer..if you are only for yourselves no one else is going to be for you.
That will probably be the last lesson you learn and by the time you learn it you probably won't be around to make use of it.
Very dumb to say the least.
How do you think that Israel can be convinced to change?
And, in what way?
Practically.
The Walt/Mearsheimer thesis is to do so by silencing (by exposing in embarrasment) the "Israel Lobby", and that somehow that influence on American support would diminish or cease, and that public opinion and international law will force Israel to "come to its senses".
Witty, do you really mean to equate public exposure with silence? A free press has no worth? What do you mean "somehow"? The W & M book in no way supports silencing anyone. The whole point of it is exactly the opposite.
How can Israel be convinced to change?
They can't be 'convinced' if by convincing you mean reasoning with them.
Because they have 'No Reason' to change.
For more than sixty years the western world has supported Israel. Despite all the guarentees in the world to assuage their concerns Israel has continued to use security as a reason for greed driven expansion. The US in particular has continued that support in the face of all their violations of international laws and out of proportion acts of agression against others. Israel has never been punished or sanctioned for any of their trangressions. Many of which have been damaging to the US and to the interest other countries have in the region. On the rare occasions when Israel has been told to hold off some action it has been in the form of bribbing them with a large payoff instead of promise of punishment if they don't.
I reapeat they have no reason to change their bid for dominance in their near regions or their land confisication of Palestine.
Like a spoiled child whose parents have never set limits on their behavior or disciplined them, Israel will continue to take what they want and act out until a bigger authority puts their foot down on this behavior.
Comments on this entry are closed.